I don't know. Read "The Mismeasure of Man", by Stephen Jay Gould. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man
Ok, but for the sake of balance I include some of Gould's critics: Criticisms The Mismeasure of Man has been highly controversial. The popular and literary press have mostly praised the book, while most scientific journals have been critical.[4] Among psychologists, the reaction has been largely negative. Hans Eysenck's[5] review called the book "a paleontologist's distorted view of what psychologists think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science." Critics have accused Gould of selective reporting, distorting the viewpoints of scientists, and letting his viewpoints be influenced by political and ethical biases, and allege that many of Gould's claims about the validity of intelligence measures, such as IQ, contradict mainstream psychology. Bernard Davis (1916–1994), former professor at the Harvard Medical School, and former head of the Center for Human Genetics, indicates that "While the nonscientific reviews of The Mismeasure of Man were almost uniformly laudatory, the reviews in the scientific journals were almost all highly critical." Davis describes the book as "a sophisticated piece of political propaganda, rather than as a balanced scientific analysis." On Gould's use of biological determinism and his understanding of intelligence testing, Davis states "Gould would prefer to combat the straw man of naive, 'pure' determinism, he fails to note that the science of genetics has altogether replaced this concept with interactionism." On Gould's use of the concept of "reification" Davis adds: "Gould's argument on reification purports to get at the philosophical foundation of the field. He claims that general intelligence, defined as the factor common to different cognitive abilities, is merely a mathematical abstraction; hence if we consider it a measurable attribute we are reifying it, falsely converting an abstraction into an 'entity' or a 'thing'—variously referred to as 'a hard, quantifiable thing,' 'a quantifiable fundamental particle,' 'a thing in the most direct, material sense.' Here he has dug himself a deep hole. . . . Indeed, this whole argument is fantastic. The scientist does not measure 'material things': He measures properties (such as length or mass), sometimes of a single 'thing' (however defined), and sometimes of an organized collection of things, such as a machine, a biological organ, or an organism. In a particularly complex collection, the brain, some properties (i.e., specific functions) have been traced to narrowly-localized regions (such as the sensory or motor nuclei connected to particular parts of the body)" On Gould's "highly selective" use of data, he adds: "His historical account is highly selective; he asserts the non-objectivity of science so that he can test for scientific truth, flagrantly, by the standards of his own social and political convictions; and by linking his critique to the quest for fairness and justice, he exploits the generous instincts of his readers. . . . In effect, we see here Lysenkoism risen again: an effort to outlaw a field of science because it conflicts with a political dogma. Charles Murray in an interview in Skeptic magazine, claimed that Gould misrepresented his views. Arthur Jensen, a prominent educational psychologist, in a paper titled The Debunking of Scientific Fossils and Straw Persons.[4] made the following observation: Stephen Jay Gould is a paleontologist at Harvard's Museum of Comparative Zoology and offers a course at Harvard entitled, "Biology as a Social Weapon." Apparently the course covers much the same content as does the present book. Having had some personal cause for interest in ideologically motivated attacks on biologically oriented behavioral scientists, I first took notice of Gould when he played a prominent role in a group called Science for the People and in that group's attack on the theories of Harvard zoologist Edward O. Wilson, a leader in the development of sociobiology. . . Jensen also makes a complaint similar to Murray's when charging Gould with misrepresentations. In his references to my own work, Gould includes at least nine citations that involve more than just an expression of Gould's opinion; in these citations Gould purportedly paraphrases my views. Yet in eight of the nine cases, Gould's representation of these views is false, misleading, or grossly caricatured. Nonspecialists could have no way of knowing any of this without reading the cited sources. While an author can occasionally make an inadvertent mistake in paraphrasing another, it appears Gould's paraphrases are consistently slanted to serve his own message. Arthur Jensen, like Davis, suggested that Gould relies on information that is outdated while ignoring present research and information that does not support his conclusions. Of all the book's references, a full 27 percent precede 1900. Another 44 percent fall between 1900 and 1950 (60 percent of those are before 1925); and only 29 percent are more recent than 1950. From the total literature spanning more than a century, the few "bad apples" have been hand-picked most aptly to serve Gould's purpose. However this sampling may only reflect Gould's historical treatment of the subject, and his literary style of incorporating historical thinkers—such as Plato, Alexander Pope, Thomas Jefferson, and his profession's hero Charles Darwin—into his narrative. Percentages aside, Gould argued that he had "focused upon the leading and most influential scientists of their times and have analyzed their major works." J. Philippe Rushton, head of the Pioneer Fund, which funds research towards "the scientific study of heredity and human differences," accused Gould of "scholarly malfeasance" for misrepresenting or ignoring relevant scientific research, and attacking dead arguments and methods. Rushton also charges that Gould fails to mention recent discoveries made from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) which show a 0.4 correlation between brain-size and IQ. Hans Eysenck—who at the time of his death was the most frequently cited living psychologist—wrote that: "S. J. Gould's Mismeasure of Man is a paleontologist's distorted view of what psychologists think, untutored in even the most elementary facts of the science. Gould is one of a number of politically motivated scientists who have consistently misled the public about what psychologists are doing in the field of intelligence, what they have discovered and what conclusions they have come to. Gould simply refuses to mention unquestionable facts that do not fit into his politically correct version; he shamelessly attacks the reputations of eminent scientists of whom he disapproves, on completely nonfactual grounds, and he misrepresents the views of scientists." * Finally, many of Gould's positions conflict with conclusions reached by the American Psychological Association, whose Board of Scientific Affairs has published a report finding that IQ scores do in fact have high predictive validity for certain individual differences.
Part 1: There is a reason why crack yields a longer sentence over cocaine. Back around 1985 a commission was formed to examine the disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing. They found that, among other things, there was more crime associated with crack because: 1) It's cheaper to purchase, 2) It's easier to get, 3) The most common usage of crack is to smoke it, which gives a fast high, while the most common usage of cocaine is to snort it, giving a slow high, thus leading people to become more addicted to crack as the highs are very short but very strong. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the so called "100:1 Ratio" that the federal governement has adopted when reffering to crack and cocaine, but that's their logic on sentencing. I would go ahead and say that they didn't conduct a 10 year study and enact legislation to simply "screw the poor". Part 2: I don't think you can necessarily use insanity or other mental health concerns as an arguement. It's within your own right to be insane, there's no law against it. However, if you pose a threat to yourself or others then it becomes the responsibility of the "governement" (I use the term to cover police, social workers, mental health, etc.) to protect yourself and others from harm. If you have the cash to get help before you become a threat to yourself or others, then good for you. If you don't, then you might become a threat and get picked up before you do something against the law and get detained so that you can actually get help, provided from the governement. Part 3: I'm under the assumption that Rush Limbaugh isn't on the "books" for being a habitual drug offender. It's certainly not uncommon for people who are arrested (for drugs or anything else) for the first time to be placed on probation coupled with drug rehabilitation. It's the multiple offenders (drug related or otherwise) who find themselves in jail for such things as marijuana. Of course, there is a difference between using a small "personal" quantity of a drug and distributing a drug. Yet, I would say that Limbaugh and other people who are "high-profile" possibly get off easier than most do, but I think using a celebrity case to strengthen your arguement isn't justified.
Heres an interesting take on the question, an interview with Dr. Robert Gordon of John Hopkins University on the relationship between IQ and crime. Dr. Robert Gordon of Johns Hopkins University calls himself a scientist. Time magazine calls him a eugenicist. Many of his students call him racist. Gordon is one of the dozen or so university professors who have been subsidized by a non-profit foundation called the Pioneer Fund to do research on the genetics of human intelligence and race. Their findings indicate that blacks test lower than whites on IQ tests. Many of them have concluded that lower intelligence is for the most part a genetic trait - independent of social and economic background. Gordon has concluded that it is responsible for many of this country's social problems, including illegitimacy, unemployment, and violent crime. The Bell Curve, a new 800-page sociological tome which compiles and supports the results and views of these professors, was the catalyst which caused a longtime dispute within the scientific community to explode into the media with enough force to brand these men Professors of Hate. Co-authored by the well-known social scientist Charles Murray and the late psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein, The Bell Curve is selling out of bookstores across America. Despite the opposition that Gordon and his colleagues have faced, they continue to publish material that the media often refers to as unproved and inflammatory. The Gadfly recently spoke with Dr. Gordon about his views in the wake of the recent turmoil. Gadfly: What was the focus of your research? Gordon: My research dealt primarily with the consequences of lower intelligence, such as crime. I have found that there is a definite link between lower intelligence and higher crime. IQ level and crime rate are inversely related. Do you think that IQ tests are valid in measuring intelligence though? I think IQ is a very good variable in measuring intelligence. It's an accurate measurement of a person's abstract reasoning ability - ability to think about abstractions in a logical manner. In this way, having a high IQ increases the options that an individual has. Abstract reasoning ability also indicates how well an individual is capable of thinking ahead in a situation and considering the consequences of an action. This is why I've concluded that one with a high IQ doesn't turn to crime as easily. If someone with a low IQ sees a pair of shoes on another person's feet that he likes, he will be much more likely to neglect the obvious consequences of murdering for the shoes than someone with an above average IQ. Because he lacks the ability to logically evaluate his actions as clearly, he will be less likely to conclude that the pair of shoes are not worth risking a lifetime in a state penitentiary. The controversy concerning this book and your research is growing because many people believe that it's racist. How do you respond to this view? People like to make a big start over the dangers of the results of this research. It's a sensitive issue because there are clear and consistent results that people just don't like. Do you believe that black people, on average, are genetically less intelligent than white? If IQ tests measure intelligence... well, you can't overlook... black people score an average of 18 points lower than whites. How much of a difference can 18 IQ points make in a person's life? Well, that depends on the range that you're talking about. If it's between 140 and 158, there's really no major difference. Both individuals will have the ability to be very successful in society. If it's between 115 and 133, that might be the difference between whether or not a person will be accepted at MIT. In the range of 82 to 100, you will have one person who will most likely enjoy average success in a professional career to another who will most likely attend an OK college - certainly not one of the best colleges, though. Now when you reach the point where you're talking about18 points below 80, you're talking about the difference between a person who's serving fast food and a person who is severely retarded. How accurate would you say that this18 point difference between blacks and whites really is? It's very accurate. It's a well known and accepted figure. These statistics are based on tests taken in huge samples where the standard error is very, very small. Most people round the figure down to 15 points. So 15 to18 points is very accurate. But how conclusive are the test scores? Even in The Bell Curve, several examples are listed of standardized tests which are racially and culturally biased against blacks. The items in an IQ test are ranked in order of difficulty, and the blacks who test low on the test generally miss the same items, the ones ranked as most difficult, as the whites who test low. Their errors are not sensitive to any particular items. But how can we be sure that it's genetic? Can't it be argued that environment in a child's developing years is a factor which will determine his IQ? If we include the parents of the child when we speak of environment, then yes, in the very early stages of life. For example, children born to unwed mothers tend to score, at rates of 1 to 10, at the lowest level. But the most persuasive data that I've seen shows that after that early stage in a child's life, changing the IQ is almost impossible. The research that I've done on crime suggests that a family with low IQ levels will certainly contribute to the delinquency of a child. And the family's genetic background almost always has a determining effect on the childÕs intelligence and ability. The Bell Curve states that intelligence is 60% hereditary. It goes on to say that the most reliable tests have shown that it's actually a much higher figure, but this is the one that they use to avoid controversy. Do you agree with this figure? I agree that it is the most defensible figure. It is an intermediate figure that I think might be true. In your research were you aiming toward establishing a genetic basis for racial differences in intelligence and crime, or did your data lead you to the conclusion? Some of my early work was rather serendipitous. But the way that I work is I set up a hypothesis and test it on data. If the hypothesis can't be invalidated by data then it stays, if it is invalidated you chuck the hypothesis. My current hypothesis has not been discredited. Rolling Stone magazine ran an article entitled "Professors of Hate" in last month's... I have the article. How do you respond? It's just namecalling. It's some journalist doing a hachet job, who is not in the least interested in science. Have you encountered any opposition like this at the university? The black student union has already called for me to be fired. Have you said anything to defend yourself against them, or against Rolling Stone? I don't think I should have to defend myself. I've offered to meet with the students, although I'm not sure whether that would accomplish anything. I am certainly not going to back down from my scientific publications. I don't see any reason for people to get snobby or defensive about their IQs. There's always going to be somebody brighter than you are if you look far enough. And there will always be some blacks that will be more intelligent then some whites. Some people have got to bring their emotions up to date. These things can't even be discussed or studied anymore, even if there is some basis for finding truth there. Among serious scholars and psychometricians, this difference in average IQ level between black and white is hardly a subject of serious dispute. Many of these people believe that research like this is racist. Do you in any way think that it's better to simply avoid pursuit of this knowledge in fear of the dangerous consequences? Do you? I'd have to say no. Are you a racist? No. Do you think it would be racist to refuse to hire a black person? You mean to reject a black person because he were black? Yes! That would be racist. What about to assume that his IQ is lower because he is black, and to hire a white person instead, "playing it safe," so to speak? Would that be racist? Yes. That would be racist. Aren't Asians supposed to be smarter than whites? I haven't done research on that specifically, but other people's data definitely show higher non-verbal IQ figural analysis for Asians. And I don't lose sleep over that myself! In fact, I rather like it. I like to hear that there are a lot of competent people out there. The Chinese culture respects competence. Do you think our culture respects competence? Yes! We have to. I mean, when it comes down to it, you want to get what you pay for. When you want something done, you find a competent person to do it. I'm sure you're familiar with the term "eugenics?" Oh, yes, it's the attempt to improve the human race through genetic and environmental means. Today, the terms "eugenicist" and "racist" are used interchangably. What do you think of this trend? People too reflexively associate it with Nazi Germany. If you take the definition, there's nothing wrong with it. A late Professor William Shockley of Stanford University, who also did subsidized research for the Pioneer Fund, had once expressed an opinion that people with low IQs should be payed to be sterilized. Do you think that is a good idea? I think that's a rather shocking proposal! I would prefer not paying people. [Laughter] I do think that if we could persuade people with lower IQs not to have as many children as they are having, there would be obvious benefits. As far as black people are concerned, I donÕt know. If they care about the future of their race, they might be willing to go to some trouble to accomplish that. I think it's right to give them the proper information in order for them to do that. Don't you think that view is unfair to people with a lower IQ? What you could try to do is try to find a way to combine their satisfaction of parenting and family life with this goal to improve the mean intelligence of their race. I mean, I don't think you need 14 children! It's a question of how people are willing to help for this cause. What exactly do you think they could do? It's very complicated. High IQ people tend to have children of slightly lower IQ... Did you say lower? Yes, because of the natural phenomenon of regression toward the mean. Ask one of your professors about it, he'll explain it to you. Anyway, high IQ people have children of slightly lower IQ, and lower IQ people have children of slightly higher IQ. If the people on the bottom were having considerably more children, as is happening today, the trend of the mean would be downwards. And studies show that today, black women with higher IQ and with more education are having less children. Do you think it's fair to demand political action based on the results of your research? I think there certainly should be discussion of political action on this basis, but I don't have any say in this matter. Those of us who do research don't have any say at all - we don't have our thumbs over the power button. Do you have anything to say to those who are insisting that you are a racist? No. Everything can be called racist nowadays if people don't like it, or sexist, elitist, or whatever else-ist. I mean, do you want to let me get to the bottom of this or do you want to namecall? Books like this are written for adults, and unfortunately there don't seem to be many left in the media nowadays.
That sounds like a very interesting book, Curacano. I might just have to invest the .22 cents and get a used one from Amazon.com. It's really too bad so many people are afraid to talk about race, as mentioned in the interview. But there definitely does seem to be a trend regarding those who are adamant about there being no inherent difference between races. They are those that are not interested in science and the data they offer. Like criticisms of the book, "The Mismeasurement of Man" indicate, the people that praised the book were people from magazines, newspapers, and the media who are largely uneducated about the actual science. Whereas all of the books' criticisms came soley from Stephen Gould's colleagues, who, unanimously agree the book is complete crap. Mere propaganda under the guise of science.
According to some paradigms, a certain number of these traits automatically define the patient as insane.
If by this quote Dr Gordon is referring to the 'black race', then he is, if not racist, racialist. If he's referring to the 'human race', though, then he's a non-racial eugenicist. Presumably such a person believes that 'stupid people' should be encouraged to have fewer children regardless of skin colour. The difficulty lies in defining 'stupid people'...
Until very recently--on civilization's timeline--there were always plenty of jobs for the less clever. During periods of prosperity and tolerance anyone who was willing to do hard physical labor could earn a subsistence living, and many of their brighter neighbors fared no better. During hard times the smart and the stupid alike could become slaves or beggars. Up through the waning years of the Industrial Era in "The West," the modestly endowed could get unionized jobs in factories, retail, and unskilled trades that supported a lower middle class lifestyle. It has only been since the automation revolution, which in full flower became the computer age, that many of these jobs have been eliminated. Many of those that remain have become so high-tech that even though they continue to pay poorly, a vast segment of the population can no longer master them. Office work--which used to require only the ability to read, sort alphabetically, perform sixth-grade arithmetic, and build upon common sense to learn a few slightly complex procedures which, once learned, seldom changed--now requires computer literacy. The brightest people often get kicked in the teeth by Windows and the so-called "information infrastructure." It makes average people sweat and tremble. The lower percentiles on the IQ curve simply cannot master it. It's a death spiral for them. You have to live with your computer to become facile with it: spend a lot of your time trading e-mails, surfing the net, playing games, using word processors and spreadsheets for daily chores. People of below-average intelligence never become quite proficient enough to keep up with their e-mail or balance their checkbook so it's a counterproductive use of their time. As a result, when they go to work they don't have the skills to use the computer there either. My mother, a disciplined and productive clerk-typist who proudly kept the wheels of goverment turning smoothly for most of her life, would not be able to get a job today. Rapid advances in technology have often caused social upheaval. Modern medicine is arguably the major cause of the Third World's crippling population explosion. Automobiles and the earlier railroads reshaped the landscape. Petroleum hasn't finished rewriting the history of the Middle East. Factory farming displaced huge rural populations, as did the Industrial Revolution before it. Today the computer is disenfranchising a whole segment of the human race. What's going to happen to these people? There was a long time when those who did not have the strength, stamina or health to perform physical labor simply died of starvation and exposure unless they had exceptionally prosperous and caring relatives. Is that what we're going to do now with the people we dismiss as "stupid"? Not let them die perhaps, but satisfy our consciences with a more compassionate genocide by letting their bloodlines die off? My dog is stupid. Even the brightest dogs like poodles are far dumber than a chimpanzee, and my Lhasa Apso is about as smart as a hoover. Yet I would never consider not having him around. Sure he isn't as expensive to care for as a human, but some of you have much bigger dogs that require a lot of food and take up your time in long walks. They make a dent in your income but you don't complain. They contribute something to your life. Don't these people who can't learn algebra or understand Mark Twain contribute anything to our lives? A lot of them are sweet and loving, like our dogs. Some of them have a sense of humor, an ability to sing, a sense of loyalty, the ability to listen to our troubles and respond with an insightful, caring comment. In short, some of them are a hell of a lot nicer than some of us. One of the consequences of widespread automation is supposed to be a lot less work to do. Do we really need everyone to be employed? Will the world's GDP one day be high enough that everyone can live prosperously even if they can't contribute directly to it but only serve a supporting role in providing companionship for the rest of us? Like our dogs? I have often stated here that our relationship with dogs, which is far older than civilization itself, has always served as a shining example of how to deal with other humans. With many profound exceptions, we are generally noble enough to treat our fellow man at least as well as we treat "man's best friend." Perhaps it's time to do this again.
I've kind of lost the thread of the conversation here because this topic has branched out so many ways, so I'm not quite sure of the focus of your question. But I certainly wish that when I am overcome by any of a number of conditions (incurable pain, can't remember who I am, medical costs destroying the financial health of my family or my whole country, etc.), some kind person will give me an overdose of anesthesia instead of forcing me and everyone else to endure the suffering, indignity and expense.
And how much of your income do you donate to keep the many no-kill shelters in operation? How many dogs have you rescued? I'm as generous as I can be and we have two rescue dogs in our pack at the moment. If you're familiar with my posts you know I'm a libertarian. The government should not be in the charity business, either for people or for dogs, because they spend so much of the money they collect on the salaries of twelve levels of bureaucrats who do nothing all day except administer each other, that very little of it actually goes into the endeavor they claim to be pursuing. Americans were once the most charitable people on earth and they would be once again if the government would stop confiscating our discretionary income and squandering it on negative-producing civil service synecures and blatantly unconstitutional social-engineering experiments. It's our duty as the species with the superior intellectual power in this multi-species community to care for the other species humanely. That includes not allowing them to breed themselves into a crisis of overpopulation. Considering that we've allowed our own species to do that, and that in the 21st century there are still powerful groups that sabotage all efforts to control it, it's no surprise that governments expend more resources on killing homeless dogs than on preventing their births.
